Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

food science books?


insectrights
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a bit off topic, but did anyone else read John Thorne's review of the new McGee in Saveur this month? I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that the author of Simple Cooking had few good things to say about it, but it seemed overly critical, and inappropriately so.

For example, while there is certainly a lot of "scientific jargon" in the new McGee, there is a great deal that is NOT jargon -- and jargon is another word for precise, discipline-based language anyway. I dunno... it seemed like a editing stunt that didn't work.

edited for formatting -- ca

Edited by chrisamirault (log)

Chris Amirault

eG Ethics Signatory

Sir Luscious got gator belts and patty melts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, john's a terrific writer and a very interesting, challenging thinker. he has written some very good reviews that i really disagree with and i think this is one of those. to me, the mark of a good review is not whether i agree with it or not, but whether i am clear where the author stands and why. by those standards, i don't think you can argue that john didn't write a good review.

i think hal's book struck a nerve with john, who is very much an experiential (as opposed to experimental) cook. i guess i'm somewhere in the middle, so i was able to take a more distanced view. one thing that i do agree with john about is the way all this food science stuff--unintentionally, to be sure--can actually serve to make cooking seem more complicated and difficult, rather than the opposite. someone interviewed me for a story a couple of weeks ago and wanted to know if people could cook well without understanding the maillard reaction.

Edited by russ parsons (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First a disclaimer . . . I haven't read Thorne's review. But, just conceptually, I am not sure I understand why a reviewer would give a book a bad review if it isn't what he wants or thinks it ought to be. McGee's book doesn't claim to be anything but a science book. If you don't want to read about the science of cooking and cook "experientially" knock yourself out. Just don't read the science books. And don't blame a book about science for being . . . um . . . about science.

I, for one, enjoy every cooking science book I can get my hands on, every one of them, wherever they are in the spectrum. But then, I am a science geek.

My suggestion for choosing books of this sort is to get them all!

Linda LaRose aka "fifi"

"Having spent most of my life searching for truth in the excitement of science, I am now in search of the perfectly seared foie gras without any sweet glop." Linda LaRose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I'm just offended by the notion that more information than one needs is a waste and that's how I read Thorne's review. I can't think of a greater richness than owning a book with information I just may want some day. I have at times been stingy enough to buy a book that just had the information I needed at the moment, but I'd not imply the other books had too much information for anyone. I honestly think it's terrific that Saveur looked for and found a dissenting voice, but when Thorne asked if McGee's book would be of any help in making gravy when the turkey was already on the counter, I had to wonder what his point was. Perhaps there are many people who already have more information than they can handle, but I'll continue to champion the idea that we can all learn more and put that knowledge to good use. A little knowledge may be a bad thing, but I've never heard that said about a lot of knowledge. Few people probably need McGee's book, but that won't change my opinion that those who read it can profit from the knowledge therein.

I don't think it's a good review. I think it misses the point and beauty of the book in it's attempt to find fault with knowledge.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's an interesting point bux, and i probably agree with you more than not. but i do sometimes think that in becoming popular, the science of cooking has kind of become just one more collection of useless information that certain kinds of people collect without ever acting on. now, as a lifelong collector (and professional promoter!) of next-to-useless obscure information, i don't have much of a problem with that. but i can understand how others might get cranky about these endless wonky conversations that rarely seem to lead to anyone actually cooking dinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Rushina
      What would you like to be included in a cookbook you classify as a "good cookbook"?
      Rushina
    • By Multiwagon
      Other than the three written by Michael Ruhlman, which I have read and loved, what other books are out there that are about cooking, but not cookbooks?
    • By OliverB
      I just received a copy of "The Cook's Book - Concise Edition" edited by Jill Norman, and now I'm curious, what's the difference to the full edition? Supposedly it has 648 pages compared to 496 in this edition, and it appears to be much larger in size if the info on us.dk.com is correct. Other than that I can't find any info what the difference might be. It's a neat book with lots of photos about techniques etc, and lots of recipes. As with any DK book production values are high.
      If the contents are the same, I'm happy with the smaller version, but I'd really like to know what I might be missing on those 150 or so pages. If it's just filler, I don't care. If it's some fantastic recipes, I do care....
      Anybody here know both editions? Google was so far of no help. Lots of the full edition are to be had used as well, I'd be happy giving this one as a gift and ordering the full edition, if it's worth it.
      Thanks!
      Oliver
    • By devlin
      Say you were rounded up with a group of folks and either had a skill to offer in exchange for a comfy room and some other niceties or were sent off to a slag heap to toil away in the hot sun every day for 16 hours, what 3 books would you want to take with you to enable you to cook and bake such fabulous foodstuffs that your kidnappers would keep you over some poor schlub who could cook only beans and rice and the occasional dry biscuit?
    • By mixmaster b
      I am interested in getting some cookbooks that cover the basics of pastry and baking--not bread, necessarily, but dessert, cakes, cookies, etc. I searched a few other cookbook threads but did not have luck on finding books on pastry.
      My interest is in fairly classic French and European style baking, and I need a book that covers technique. Pictures would also be much appreciated--I like both the step by step pix or great pictures of the end product.
      Right now, I have Desserts and Chocolate Desserts by Pierre Herme. (I love these and have had good results from the recipes, but feel I should start with a more classic approach.) La Varenne Pratique has provided some good starting points, but I would like to find a book with more focus on baking.
      I was thinking about the Payard book. Any comments? Suggestions would be much appreciated! In case it applies, I am a home cook and am slightly more skilled than a total beginner.
      Thanks!
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...